Plans to improve access to the Willamette River south of the Ross Island Bridge and provide better connectivity with the Sellwood and Brooklyn neighborhoods took another step forward following a recent open house hosted by the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.

The bureau’s River Plan/ builds on the 1987 Willamette Greenway Plan and will update existing policies and regulations, prioritize future investments in the area and develop an implementation strategy.

In addition to strengthening connections to the nearby neighborhoods, the plan seeks to improve access to the river by exploring options for new docks and identifying opportunities for and existing obstacles to land-based and river-based recreation. Addressing fish and wildlife habitat, environmental restoration and floodplain management are key parts of the plan as well as an assessment of zoning code provisions that apply to riverfront communities and floating homes.

Debbie Bischoff, a BPS senior planner, noted that almost half of the land in the project area is devoted to parks, open spaces and natural resources while the remainder is single-family, multifamily and floating homes and some businesses. The developable area is mostly built out.

“An important consideration in planning work is to provide and expand public access via streets and trails to and along the riverfront and into the river,” she stated via email. “Another consideration is to protect and enhance natural resources for people, fish and wildlife.”

Some of the challenges involved in the South Reach project relate to completing the greenway trail system in places where development exists. Generally, public trail sections are built when a significant development or redevelopment project is reviewed for land use or building approval. Another challenge is striking a balance between protecting natural resources while promoting public access and recreation on land and in the river.

“For example, shallow water habitat areas are often desirable places for swimming,” Bischoff pointed out.

Following a visioning workshop and several other outreach events, the BPS held an open house Dec. 1 at Llewellyn Elementary School that allowed it to synthesize the feedback it has received from the community so far and provide the public with some initial concepts the bureau is considering for the plan, BPS planner Jeff Caudill stated via email.

“One important outcome of the project will be a South Reach Urban Design Concept and underlying ‘Big Ideas,’” he stated. “These concepts present a future vision for the area and highlight specific actions we may pursue as a part of the plan.”

Bischoff said the bureau has received a robust amount of feedback from community members, and some central themes include protecting and enhancing natural resources; improving the safety of trail users by establishing a speed limit for bicyclists and separating pedestrians from cyclists; and adding amenities such as benches, restrooms, water fountains, a dock and a boat launch. The multipurpose dock could be located near Oaks Amusement Park.

Others suggested expanding the river setback for new development and redevelopment adjacent to the river. Community members also recommended completing the riverfront trail system and extending the trail to Lake Oswego. In addition, the plan could include recreating the historic channel through Ross Island to reduce algal blooms.

An inventory and analysis of existing conditions began last winter, and visioning for the urban design concept will continue through the spring. The bureau plans to present a proposed draft in spring 2019 and gather recommendations during Planning and Sustainability Commission hearings. A recommended draft will be presented to the City Council for hearings and final action in early 2020, according to the project’s timeline.

The riverfront area in Dunthorpe, which is in unincorporated Multnomah County, is included in the project because the city and county have an agreement that Portland will conduct planning for the county’s unincorporated areas.

Elizabeth Milner, co-chairwoman of the Sellwood-Moreland Improvement League‘s Stewardship of Natural Amenities Committee, attended the initial visioning workshop and the Dec. 1 presentation. Neighborhood residents are excited for more access to the river, an improved public swimming area, enhanced boat access, and better signage to remind dog owners to clean up after their pets, she said.

“We have some committee members who are working to save some open space that is privately owned between Llewelyn Elementary and the (Wilhelm Portland Memorial) funeral home, and if that works out that could be a potential trailhead to Oaks Bottom because the current trailheads are pretty far apart,” she said.

With 305 acres of public parks, natural areas and open spaces, the South Reach is home to threatened and endangered species that include Chinook, coho and sockeye salmon and steelhead trout as well as Pacific lamprey and cutthroat trout, which are federal species of concern. It is the only section of the Willamette River in Portland that has floating home moorages, and Oaks Bottom is the only designated wildlife refuge in the Rose City. Oaks Amusement Park, which opened in 1905, is one of the oldest amusement parks operating in the country, according to the bureau’s “fun facts” about the area.

The post South Reach project aims to build connections appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The city of Portland has decided to delay any further work on the River Plan until the city’s new comprehensive plan, the Portland Plan, is completed in two years.

After both the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals and the Court of Appeals sided against the River Plan, which would have enforced new zoning and mitigation standards along the Willamette River, the city has decided to pull back on any more work.

After passing the North Reach portion of the River Plan earlier this year, the Working Waterfront Coalition, an industry group representing businesses in the Portland Harbor, immediately appealed the plan to LUBA. LUBA then sided with the industry group, asking the city to complete several tasks before the new zoning can go into effect. Businesses and property owners are concerned about losing too much developable land.

The major step needed for the city to comply is to create an Economic Opportunities Analysis. City staffers are in the middle of creating that document, but according to Chief Planner Joe Zehnder, the city wants that analysis to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan before moving forward.

Zehnder said the city wants to reopen discussions with stakeholders about the zoning and regulation in the plan in the coming months.

The post City of Portland delays River Plan two years appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

In the constant battle of industry vs. government in Portland, industry has notched another victory.

Last week the Oregon Court of Appeals sided with the , an industry group that represents water dependent businesses in the Portland Harbor, on its claim that the city needs a new buildable lands inventory. The ruling comes after the state Land Use Board of Appeals halted the city’s proposed in January, further diminishing the city’s chances of new environmental zoning on the Willamette River.

The North Reach of the River Plan, which covers land along the Willamette River north of the Broadway Bridge, was passed by the city last year. It was immediately appealed by the WWC to LUBA, and eventually was remanded back to the city with the request that the city determine how much industrial land will be lost with the new zoning and how that land will be replaced.

The WWC didn’t think that was enough, so it appealed the LUBA decision to the Court of Appeals saying the city failed to address Statewide Planning goal 15, which requires various activities to be protected along the Willamette River. The goal couldn’t be met, the WWC said, unless the city conducted a buildable lands inventory. The Court of Appeals sided with the group.

While there isn’t an end in sight to the remand for the city, a buildable lands inventory could be a stepping stone to moving forward with the River Plan.

As part of the city’s , a 25 year vision, city officials plan to conduct a buildable lands inventory. The issue will first be discussed by the Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission, along with a public hearing, at the Tuesday, June 28 . The meeting is at 6 p.m. at 1900 S.W. Fourth Ave., room 2500.

– Nick Bjork

The post River Plan takes another hit; industry group wants buildable lands inventory appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The city of Portland chose not to appeal a recent decision by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals to remand the North Reach portion of the to the city.

But the Oregon Court of Appeals will nevertheless hear and make a ruling on the plan for environmental zoning along the Willamette River.

The city had until Friday to appeal LUBA‘s decision, which called into question whether the River Plan‘s zoning caused a net reduction in available industrial acreage. However, the appealing parties surprisingly appealed the LUBA decision.

“LUBA (provided) the first outside look of the process the city went through to adopt the (River Plan),” said Ann Gardner, a spokeswoman for the Working Waterfront Coalition, the industry group that appealed the city’s plan; Gunderson LLC and Schnitzer Steel also appealed. “What we observed was that (LUBA) was very clear that the city needed to do a lot more fact-finding on the facts they used to base the plan off of.

“We believe the Court of Appeals will help determine what are facts and what aren’t.”

Prior to the deadline, the three appealing parties filed separate petitions for judicial review to the state Court of Appeals, which is the final court for state land-use decisions.

The North Reach of the River Plan, which strengthens zoning on properties near the Willamette River north of the Broadway Bridge, was approved by City Council in April 2010. The plan lays out an extensive process for development to occur on those lots that can require city review, on-site environmental mitigation for about 15 percent of the property or payment into an off-site restoration fund.

The Working Waterfront Coalition, Gunderson LLC and Schnitzer Steel immediately appealed to LUBA, contending that the plan violates a portion of Goal 9, a state land-use planning goal. It requires cities to maintain a documented supply of industrial land ready for development. The appealing parties noted that approximately 692 acres of industrial land would be lost because of River Plan requirements.

LUBA upheld the appealing parties’ argument on the Goal 9 issue and remanded the plan to the city in late January, asking it to quantify the loss in acreage and add that to its comprehensive plan. LUBA either ruled against other arguments made by the appealing parties or didn’t rule at all because of a lack of information.

Susan Anderson, director of the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, in a statement released Friday, said, “The city will do the additional analysis to calculate any net changes to the industrial land supply and determine this spring when and how to bring a revised River Plan document to City Council.”

According to Rob Hallyburton, planning services division manager for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, the city isn’t facing a deadline to revise the plan because it isn’t mandated by the state. However, if the city were able to make revisions in a timely manner, it would preserve its timeline for the North Reach portion of the plan being implemented by July 1.

But this new appeal may prevent the city from accomplishing that goal.

“We thought LUBA took a thorough look at the plan, and we think the Court of Appeals will look at it even harder,” Gardner said.

The judicial review would allow the Court of Appeals to look at the plan and the appealing parties’ arguments. The court would be able to look only at evidence submitted as part of the appeal to LUBA.

The city now has until Friday to file a cross appeal of the appealing parties’ petition for judicial review. If that deadline were to pass, appealing parties would have 21 days to file briefs stating legal issues. The city would then have 21 days to file response briefs. An oral argument on those briefs would then be heard by the court.

According to Eden Dobbs, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, the city is waiting to review the appealing parties’ briefs before moving forward with its own. In the meantime, the city will move forward with an economic opportunities analysis in an effort to satisfy LUBA’s request from the remand. The analysis is expected to be finished next month, she said.

The post River Plan appealed again, but not by city appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The city of Portland has decided not to appeal a recent decision by the state Land Use Board of Appeals over the board’s recent remand of the city’s new environmental zoning on the Willamette River.

But that doesn’t mean the is dead in the water.

The city had until the end of the day today to appeal LUBA‘s remand, which called into question whether the city’s recently-adopted zoning – known as the River Plan – caused a net reduction in available industrial acreage.

The North Reach of the River Plan, which strengthens zoning on properties near the Willamette River north of the Broadway Bridge, was adopted by the city council last April. The plan lays out an extensive process for development to occur on those lots that can include a city review, on-site mitigation or payment into an off-site restoration fund in lieu of on-site mitigation.

After its adoption, the plan was immediately appealed to LUBA by the three parties – the Working Waterfront Coalition, Gunderson LLC and Schnitzer Steel. The appealing parties argued that the plan violates a portion of the state’s land use planning Goal 9 that requires towns to have a ready supply of available employment land. By having mitigation planting requirements, vegetation enhancement standards, protected zones and space designated for a greenway trail, they argued available industrial land was being taken away from the supply without a plan in place to replace it.

LUBA sided with the appeals and remanded the plan back to the city asking it to quantify any net reduction in acres of the city’s inventory of industrial lands due to the implementation of the River Plan in the North Reach.

Instead of appealing the LUBA decision to a higher court, the Oregon Court of Appeals, the city will make the changes.

“The city will do the additional analysis to calculate any net changes to the industrial land supply and determine this spring when and how to bring a revised River Plan document to city council,” said Susan Anderson, director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, in a statement released this afternoon.

In the meantime, the – which the River Plan was meant to replace – will continue to be in effect for new river development.

The post City doesn’t appeal LUBA River Plan decision appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The city of Portland will use all of the remaining 48 hours it has to determine its course of action after its update of environmental zoning along the Willamette River was remanded back to the city last month.

In a statement released late Friday, Susan Anderson, director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, said the city has yet to determine if it will appeal a recent decision from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. LUBA last month upheld a segment of appeals from two businesses and an industry group that claimed the north reach portion of the city’s negatively affected the city’s supply of industrial employment land without having a plan in place to replenish it.

The River Plan is a city-led effort to update environmental zoning on properties near the Willamette River. The plan lays out an extensive process for development to occur on those lots that can include a city review, on-site mitigation or payment into an off-site restoration fund in lieu of on-site mitigation.

The appealing parties – the Working Waterfront Coalition, Gunderson LLC and Schnitzer Steel – argued the city violates a portion of the state’s land use planning Goal 9 that requires towns to have a readily available supply of employment land. By having mitigation planting requirements, vegetation enhancement standards, protected zones and space designated for a greenway trail, the appealing parties argued available industrial land was being taken away from the city’s supply.

In response to the appeal, the city had argued that two economic opportunity analyses – one conducted in 1989 and the other in 2009 – were evidence in supporting that it addressed the requirements of Goal 9. But LUBA didn’t agree, citing that the 1989 study was too old and the 2009 study had flaws, Anderson said.

“LUBA directed us to quantify the number of acres the new regulations may remove from industrial development and evaluate the impact of any net reduction on the city’s supply of industrial land,” she said. “LUBA did not take a position on balancing (the River Plan’s) goals; (LUBA) simply said that the city had not made its case effectively.”

The city has until Feb. 11 to determine whether it wants to appeal the LUBA decision. The remand is appealable to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which would be the highest court to rule on such a matter.

If not, the city could decide to conduct a study looking into the industrial land availability, or it could decide to scrap the River Plan all together.

The post City undetermined about River Plan process appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The latest effort by the city of Portland to strengthen zoning and regulate development along the Willamette River has hit a legal snag that could end the process before zoning even becomes effective.

The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals last week remanded the only adopted portion of the city’s – intended as an update of the 1987 Willamette Greenway Plan – to the city for more work. Now city officials have until Feb. 11 to decide whether to submit a new plan, appeal the LUBA decision or scrap the plan entirely.

The River Plan’s North Reach portion, which covers the areas along the Willamette River north of the Broadway Bridge, was approved unanimously by City Council in April 2010. According to the plan, it “seeks to balance job and industry growth in Portland’s working harbor, while adding protections for threatened species along the Willamette River.”

But opponents – mostly businesses and property owners within the North Reach area – feel the updated zoning, new mitigation fee system and development review process that came out of the plan are too strict and will hurt businesses.

The plan was immediately appealed to LUBA by two companies – Gunderson LLC and Schnitzer Steel – as well as the Working Waterfront Coalition, an industry group that represents nearly 40,000 employees that work in the North Reach area.

While the appeal focused on several different aspects of the River Plan, the main sticking point was that the plan renders some industrial land undevelopable. And under state law, the city needs a plan in place for replenishment.

The appealing parties contended, and LUBA agreed, that the plan contradicts a subsection of Oregon’s land-use planning goal, which focuses on economic development in relationship to land supply. Under Goal 9, the city has an obligation to maintain an adequate supply of industrial land.

According to the remand, “Because the likely result of applying the new regulations is that the city’s supply of land potentially available for new or expanded industrial development would be effectively reduced, perhaps significantly so … (the city must determine), based on an adequate factual base, whether any such impacts on the inventory are consistent with the city’s Goal 9 obligation to maintain an adequate supply of industrial land.”

The problem is that the net loss of land isn’t known. The appealing parties conservatively estimated that 692 acres of industrial land would be lost in the North Reach area, while the city argued that zero acres would be lost. LUBA’s remand said the number of acres lost could likely fall anywhere between the two.

In order to meet the goal, LUBA said the city would need to determine an estimate of the industrial acreage that would be lost, assess the potential impact on the overall land supply and determine if more industrial land would need to be added to the supply.

According to the city’s testimony before LUBA, the point is moot because regardless of a loss of industrial land, the city still has a sufficient supply as laid out in the city’s 2009 Economic Opportunities Analysis.

But LUBA said the city can’t argue based on the analysis because it hasn’t been adopted as part of the city’s comprehensive plan. Under state law, any document that makes assumptions about complying with state law must be part of a city’s comprehensive plan.

The remand went on to state: “The (analysis) has problems of its own that lead us to conclude that even if the city could properly rely on the 2009 (analysis), it does not provide an adequate factual base on which the city could base its decision that the (River Plan) will not have an impact on the city’s industrial land base that violates Goal 9.”

The city has until Feb. 11 to decide whether to appeal the LUBA remand. If the city were to decline, officials would have until the summer to change the plan and resubmit it for approval either to LUBA or the Land Conservation and Development Commission, depending on the city’s chosen route.

Phillip Grillo, an attorney with Miller Nash LLP, filed the petition and represented the Working Waterfront Coalition. He believes a plan could be devised that would satisfy all parties.

“From the very beginning we’ve offered to go through a mediation process with the city and anyone else with a stake in this plan,” Grillo said. “We continue to think that the opportunity is still there to do so, and we hope the city is willing to do so.”

City officials failed to return inquiries by press time.

The post Portland River Plan immediately appealed appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

With more than 40 inches of annual precipitation and some of the nation’s biggest lakes and rivers by volume, Oregon has few natural resources as abundant as water.

But even with so much water, Lewis & Clark College law professor Janet Neuman believes the state’s glass is still half empty.

The state’s land-use system has a long, internationally recognized history, but its cousin, the water-rights system, has received nowhere near the same amount of attention from state lawmakers. Also, Oregon’s water resources are diminishing because of climate change and increased competition, Neuman said. So she is pushing for new water regulations, including some that could affect land use and businesses in Oregon.

“It’s hard to get that concerned about water here in Portland with the immense amount of rain and fact that we’re bisected by two rivers,” Neuman told a crowd at a City Club of Portland event last week. “But it’s a growing issue both locally and across the world as we move forward.”

Oregon has an abundance of water, but it also has an abundance of water users. Some of the state’s biggest industries – agriculture and technology manufacturing – require a lot of water. For example, a silicon wafer manufacturing plant uses 2 million to 4 million gallons of clean water per day. An average household uses about 200 gallons a day.

And demand is increasing.

The city of Portland’s long-term growth plan estimates that daily demand for water will increase by 40 million gallons by 2040. Additionally, the city is expected to need an additional 20 million gallons per day to make up for losses due to climate change.

Greater demand and a drop in supply will tax the state’s water-use system, which is over 100 years old, according to Neuman. If lawmakers could remake the system, she said, they wouldn’t replicate it.

Under state law, the party with legal rights to a waterway in a time of water shortage is the first appropriator to put that waterway to productive use. But since Oregonians have been using water in productive ways for nearly 200 years, pinpointing initial appropriators can be difficult.

State lawmakers noted this and started the process of updating the system last year by directing state staffers to draft the state’s first water conservation and management plan. Oregon is one of only two states to not have such a plan.

“Is the system here in Oregon archaic? You bet,” said Anita Winkler, executive director of Oregon Water Resources Congress, a group dedicated to protecting water rights. “But can it be fixed? Absolutely.”

Winkler said the plan – the – would help, but a lack of state funding is a cause for concern. State legislators last year started work on the document, but will have to go through another budgeting process to finish. The plan is supposed to be completed in 2012, but Winkler said the funding issue could cause a delay.

When the plan is finally completed, Neuman doesn’t believe it will be enough. She also wants the water-use system to be tied more closely with the state’s land-use system.

“You hear the debates about the use and need for developable land all the time in Oregon, but it’s never tied to the use or need for water,” she said. “Water is just as important of a raw material.

“It’s just as big of an economic driver.”

Neuman suggested making sure any update to the water-rights system meshes well with the land-use system and state planning goals. She also believes there needs to be a better correspondence between state and local agencies that make land-use and water-use decisions, or even a group that oversees both.

Portland’s recently adopted , which is being appealed, is one effort that could benefit from this sort of planning. The city wants to update zoning on properties near the Willamette River to protect it, but there are no planning goals to help direct the effort in relationship to the water. This has slowed the process significantly and left it open to debate.

Neuman also said that pricing may be the best deterrent to overuse. She noted that it was controversial, but added that water is too cheap in Oregon for anyone to take notice of how much they are using. She is pushing lawmakers to explore the issue further.

“We need a new understanding of the system because most of this stuff is over 100 years old,” she said. “Back then it was about getting water out of there and putting it to economic use. That shouldn’t be the case anymore.”

The post Water rights in Oregon slightly murky appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Appeals to LUBA could sideline River Plan

While Portland City Council and city staff continue to trudge through the long process of adopting and implementing the River Plan, outside influences could sideline it permanently.

After the North Reach portion of the River Plan was provisionally adopted in April, the Working Waterfront Coalition, Schnitzer Steel and Gunderson, a local railcar manufacturer, immediately filed separate appeals to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.

The appeals cite, among other things, a conflict between the River Plan and state land-use goals. The appeals also note that the plan leaves Portland at a competitive disadvantage for attracting business.

Oral arguments on the appeals are scheduled to be heard by LUBA on Dec. 2 at 11 a.m., at the Public Utility Commission Building in Salem. But LUBA isn’t expected to issue a decision until early 2011.

If LUBA were to side with the appeals, then the city could be forced to either scrap the River Plan or rework the document to meet state goals.

A city plan to strengthen environmental zoning along the Willamette River has drawn heavy criticism from owners of industrial businesses in Portland. But a proposed subsidy to appease those business owners has attracted another group of critics.

The city wants to set up a system of four mitigation fees for development that occurs along the northern portion of the Willamette River. When some business owners said the proposed fees were too high, the city offered a two-year, 50 percent subsidy for two of the fees.

Now, however, some Portland residents say the subsidies are a misuse of taxpayer dollars.

“With this fee, industry will for the first time be asked to pay the real costs of their effects on the habitat,” said Bob Sallinger, conservation director for the Audubon Society of Portland. “This subsidy makes the taxpayers bear the brunt of the burden that these businesses have caused.”

City Council passed the River Plan provisionally in April, when new zoning was implemented. The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability was then tasked with creating fees so that businesses could pay for off-site mitigation projects if they did not have space available or preferred not to use their own space.

The city would consider a number of factors to determine fees, such as: an assessment of the development’s environmental impact, the project’s overall size and value, and the costs of proposed large-scale mitigation projects in the area. Proposed mitigation projects include restorations of a site previously used by MarCom and the University of Portland’s Triangle Park, and an environmental cleanup of a former industrial site.

Business owners acknowledge the importance of the projects. But they’re less convinced that they should provide most of the money through fees.

According to data provided by the city, the proposed fees without a subsidy, for example, would have cost Honda $188,323 for its recent $6.5 million expansion at the Port of Portland’s Terminal 6. That’s too much, say stakeholders.

“Getting this fee right is important to the port,” said Sebastian Degens, planning and development manager for the Port of Portland. “This is a well-designed program, but the fee structure seems to be too high.”

“These costs are being skewed by the costs the city plans to spend on these large restoration projects,” said Ann Gardner, a member of the Working Waterfront Coalition, an industry group representing 40,000 waterfront workers. “They’re estimating $13 million of a $21 million project will go toward the expected soft costs.

“We are stunned that the city would make policy decisions based on incomplete data. And if these costs are correct, then maybe we need to take another look at the projects that we are going to fund.”

Business owners are asking the city to stop and reevaluate the proposed fees and mitigation projects. But Mayor Sam Adams believes the River Plan needs to be finalized.

“The only way we’ve been able to move this thing forward has been by the continuing (research and development),” Adams said. “And I’m telling you, we will make this better as time goes on.”

The fees and the subsidy will be on the table Dec. 1, when City Council makes final decisions.

“We’re going into a period of two years with not a lot of trust,” Adams said. “This (subsidy) is an economic development incentive while we work through figuring this out.”

Alan Sprott, vice president of Vigor Industrial and chairman of the Working Waterfront Coalition, says the subsidy is proof that the fees are too high.

“We haven’t asked for a credit,” he told commissioners during a meeting on Wednesday. “I’m sure you guys thought of that when you saw the size of these fees.”

Meanwhile, citizens and environmental advocacy groups oppose the idea of taxpayers paying the subsidized costs. City staffers estimated that the subsidy would cost the city $225,000 over the two years it would be in place.

“I’ve sat on the budgeting committee for the parks department,” activist Linda Robinson said. “The money isn’t there for desperately needed maintenance already.”

Travis Williams, executive director of Willamette Riverkeeper, said the companies would find ways to pay the fees.

“The rhetoric of it being too much has been the same from these companies for the past 40 years,” he said. “If you look at the economics of these companies, they will figure it out.”

The post For some, River Plan fix makes matters worse appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The next few months should prove crucial to the owners of waterfront property in Portland as the city and state will take action on several important topics.

The first is the , which was adopted by City Council on April 15. The plan is a comprehensive land-use plan for land along the Willamette River north of the Freemont Bridge to the Portland Harbor.

The Working Waterfront Coalition, an industry group representing 17 water dependent businesses, as well as the public companies, Schnitzer Steel and Gunderson, immediately appealed the decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals.

Basically, part of the River Plan states that most any development project that takes place along the river will have to go through an in-depth and time consuming (costly) process known as the River Review. Businesses don’t want to do this. They would rather pay into a mitigation fund as a fee in lieu of River Review. They’ve proposed a fee of 1.5 percent of the total cost of the project.

LUBA will take up the appeals during hearings starting Dec. 2 in Salem, and is expected to have a ruling in January 2011. While the final ruling will only take effect on the north portion of the River Plan, it will surely have implications on how the city approaches the Central Reach (Freemont Bridge to Ross Island Bridge) and South Reach (Ross Island Bridge to city line).

Not to be overshadowed, the Portland City Council is . While the project is focused around updating the airport master plan, if approved as is, it will also ban future development within 50 feet of the entire Columbia Slough. The Columbia Slough runs through one of Portland’s major industrial areas in Northeast Portland and would have an effect on several business located on it.

Anything that currently sits within the 50-foot zone – a loading dock or generator, for example – would be allowed to be repaired or replaced, but not improved . And if nothing is presently in that zone, nothing would be allowed.

While there are very strong, and well-founded, opinions on both sides of these two issues, waterfront property owners, or individuals looking to purchase waterfront property, should keep an eye on both.

The post Looming Portland waterfront land-use decisions appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.